4th Amendment Ignored By Indiana Sheriff

[Quixote1818]

This is a few years old but I found it very interesting.

&feature=related

[1monster]

1. According to the posts on YouTube, he sued and lost. Appealed and lost.

Apparently due to the bulldozer on the property...

[classof56]

2. Some context would be helpful. n/t

[bluestateguy]

3. While some exceptions to the 4th Amt. seach and seizure provision do exist

it is not entirely clear from this video if those exceptions would be applicable here.

[iamthebandfanman]

4. If this had been florida

he probably could have gotten away with shooting her


oh wait, shes not the right skin colour.

some context about this would be nice tho,
such as..
why she was told to go and investigate there (does it say in the video ? didnt watch the ending)..
i mean, specifically.. i heard her say health violations, but thats pretty general...

[jerseyjack]

5. I am surprised if he sued and lost.

The governing case would be Terry v. Ohio. The government lost because there was no emergent condition to justify a search of Terry. Evidence was not about to disappear nor was anyone's life in danger. Terry won.

Here, the woman cannot/did not say what she suspects. If she claims the bulldozer was cause for the search of the property, she could have gone to the court and obtained a warrant that would be based on "probable cause." Probable cause means that a reasonable person hearing the evidence would believe that a crime has been or is likely to be committed and a search will produce evidence to further the prosecution of the crime.

The biggest load of horses shit is the cop's, "If you have nothing to hide..." That is not what the 4th amendment is about. You are to be secure in your person and your property especially if you have nothing to hide.